<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.01.2019 um 20:57 schrieb Peter
Elderson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+t77EKFb1SQqC22HhhYHF_Mt_xVsv9cmaFXZuV85NzbGQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I can see your argument.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First question: what's the harm in combining
highway=trailhead and tourism=information? Note: I'm not
asking this defensively or to advocate it, just want to
understand where the problem lies.
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>First of all I think this mixes two distinct features into one as
I described before: 1) the actual trail access, i. e. a point on
the trail or a highway section leading to it and 2) the
information infrastructure (information board, stele, you name
it).<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+t77EKFb1SQqC22HhhYHF_Mt_xVsv9cmaFXZuV85NzbGQ@mail.gmail.com"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede
<<a href="mailto:list@tobias-wrede.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">list@tobias-wrede.de</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">I think the thought of the old
proposal was to mark the point on a trail where to access
it, hence hw=. Peter was more going in the direction of
marking the point where we find information on how to access
the trail (name, information board, sign, stele, ...), hence
tourism=information + information=.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think we should stick to the good old OSM rule "one feature -
one OSM element"
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element</a>).
Obviously, the highway access and the information can be very
close by, but pointing again at the TOP examples I mentioned
before it's not always the case. So I am really in favor in
separating them.</p>
<p>Secondly, combining those makes it difficult for data consumers.
Unless they explicitly search for the combination of
highway=trailhead and tourism=information and treating the node
separately, they might run into problems. A renderer could for
example display all information boards on the map. But they might
handle all highway elements before in their processing chain and
hence ignore the second top level key tourism all together. In the
end we would neither see the highway=trailhead nor the
information=board on the map.</p>
<p>Tobias<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>